Nobel Laureate Obama Plans War on Syria Based on Lies

Written by
Stephen Lendman
Date: August 31, 2013
Subject:
Syria
Nobel Peace Laureate Obama Plans War on Syria Based on Lies

by Stephen Lendman

In awarding its 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, Committee members turned truth on its head, saying:

Obama made "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

He "created a new climate in international politics. Multinational diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions play."

He envisions "a world without nuclear weapons."

"Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened."

"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future."

"For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely the international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman."

Fact check:

Throughout his tenure, Obama supported multiple direct and proxy wars. He backs perpetual wars. He spurns peace. He deplores it.

He pursues confrontational policies. He chooses them over diplomatic conflict resolution. He does it every time.

He supports some the world's most ruthless despots. They get White House photo-op invitations.

He reinvented a new Cold War with Russia. His Asia pivot targets China and North Korea.

He supports Honduran coup d'etat rule. He conspired with fascist plotters to oust democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya.

After its disastrous January 2010 earthquake, he militarized Haiti. He plundered it freely. He opposed Jean-Bertrand Aristide's return. He orchestrated rigged elections. He prohibited democratic rule.

Deputy Foreign Minister Fayssal Mikdad said Washington and rogue allies have no proof Syria used chemical weapons. They're "encouraging the terrorists to use these weapons."

"We do not trust the western countries which support terrorists in Syria, and Jabhat al-Nusra on top; we have the right to defend ourselves, dignity and lands by using all means available and our people is ready for that."

He called America, Britain and France plotting inconsistent with the Security Council's mandate to preserve international peace and security.

He stressed Syria's condemnation of chemical weapons use. He wants parties using them held accountable.

Syria pursues peace, not conflict, he stressed. Initiating war serves Israeli and US interests.

"We are not alone in the arena as we have lots of friends," he said. They "understand what('s)" ongoing. "(T)he battle now is (more than about) Syria."

Martin Luther King, Jr. once said violence begets more of it. It assures endless conflicts. It "never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problems. It merely creates new and more complicated ones."

In December 2009, Obama called force at times "morally justified." He said using it defends America. He lied saying so. It assures less safety and security.

"(W)e have not yet made a decision, but the international norm against the use of chemical weapons needs to be kept in place."

"And nobody disputes - or hardly anybody disputes that chemical weapons were used on a large scale in Syria against civilian populations."

"We have looked at all the evidence, and we do not believe the opposition possessed nuclear weapons on - or chemical weapons of that sort."

"We do not believe that, given the delivery systems, using rockets, that the opposition could have carried out these attacks."

"We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out. And if that's so, then there need to be international consequences."

"So we are consulting with our allies. We're consulting with the international community."

"And you know, I have no interest in any kind of open-ended conflict in Syria, but we do have to make sure that when countries break international norms on weapons like chemical weapons that could threaten us, that they are held accountable."

"Why is important information (ignored) about the use of chemical weapons by armed detachments of the Syrian opposition, which terrorists and extremists from Al Qaeda, the al-Nusra Front, the Islamic State of Iraq, and the Levant affiliate (arm) themselves with?"

"Why (are) the leaders of the world's strongest states actually allies of these terrorists and murderers?"

How can they claim moral authority to wage war against a nation that hasn't attacked them? It hasn't threatened them.

War on Syria threatens "citizens of Western countries. (T)he world (will) suffer and continue to suffer as a result of such ventures." Ordinary people are harmed most.

On August 28, London's Guardian headlined "Strike against Assad regime stalled by British political rows," saying:

They may "be delayed until next week in the face of strong opposition in the UK parliament to British involvement in immediate military action."

Prime Minister Cameron said MPs "would be given a second vote to approve military action to defuse a parliamentary revolt, ahead of a Commons debate on Syria on Thursday."

According to Whitehall sources, Obama may delay strikes until Tuesday. He's leaving for this year's September 5 and 6 St. Petersburg G20 summit.

"We are going to make our own decisions on our own timelines about our response," she said.

Whatever UN inspectors conclude doesn't matter, she added. She claims it's "passed the point where it can be credible."

In other words, if the UN team reports what Washington wants to hear, it's gospel. Otherwise it'll be dismissed out of hand.

On August 29, the Financial Times headlined "UK clears legal hurdle for Syria strike," saying:

British forces "can legally take military action in Syria without a UN Security Council resolution after the chemical weapons attack in Damascus, according to government legal advice published on Thursday."

On August 29, a Downing Street statement headlined "Chemical weapon use by Syrian regime: UK government legal position," saying:

"The use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime is a serious crime of international concern."

"(T)he legal basis for military action would be humanitarian intervention; the aim is to relieve humanitarian suffering by deterring or disrupting the further use of chemical weapons."

Britain seeks a Security Council resolution. If "blocked, the UK would still be permitted under international law to take exceptional measures in order to alleviate the scale of the overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe in Syria by deterring and disrupting the further use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime."

False! UN Charter provisions leave no ambiguity. They prohibit military force for humanitarian interventions. Justifying them turns core international law on its head.